great gretzky wrote:Your logic is flawed. They then have to pay the person and use up a roster spot. There is no penalty for churning to the team doing it.

Isn't losing your spot in the waiver list a penalty? I mean, I know it's not huge, but in a sense, it will place a limit on how much of this kind of thing you are able to do.

Not really, because we are talking about Free Agents, which don't require a waiver claim. It's a pretty moot point on Yahoo, because if you pick up and drop the same day, it doesn't trigger the waiver process anymore. So to churn, you have to actually roster the person for a day.

great gretzky wrote:You could churn 40 or 50 players in fantasy, but real-life teams are bound by payroll and roster spots.

Well that is wrong.

I was talking on a much much smaller basis. I remember last year Blanton had a start against the Marlins during the championship week. I picked him up and activated the waiver process on him because my competitor was sport starting pitchers.

Blanton ended up going 7IP 0ER 9K that game for the W. I couldn't have been more proud of myself.

And I can compare the two because they both have the word Waiver in them.

It's not wrong, churning is be definition plural. And remember this is "unwritten rules." Your rationale for comparison is weak at best. And yes, even in fantasy, if you churn the best 5 spot starts, you are being cheap, because you are essentially exercising control over 5 players your roster space doesn't support. By triggering the waiver process, you are basically using the wire as your bench. You are sitting them down for all intents and purposes, and no one else can have them.

Good thing Yahoo changed the way that works.

I meant churning 40-50 players is "un-written" wrong. I have no problem churning the 5 best spot starters because spot starting a bunch of starters in a championship match is even cheaper. By eliminating the wire, I am making his team beat my team mono on mono. Not his team plus 5 wire pitchers vs my team.

And no I am not using the Wire as my bench, the competitor is using the Wire as his bench because he is collecting stats from Wire players. You got it all mixed up.

Well big league and fantasy waivers, are no where near similar in procedures, managers still use basic principle of blocking teams from acquiring players with waivers.

B-Chad wrote:Pedroia's LD rate of 20% is reason to believe he'll maintain a higher BA then Cano. It should also be noted he hits more FB's then Cano, which means that even if he posts a lower HR/FB then Cano, he should come in reasonably close to Cano in HR's

great gretzky wrote:Not really, because we are talking about Free Agents, which don't require a waiver claim. It's a pretty moot point on Yahoo, because if you pick up and drop the same day, it doesn't trigger the waiver process anymore. So to churn, you have to actually roster the person for a day.

Okay, that makes sense.

At the end of the day, I have to say that I've done it... perhaps not multiple times in a row, but in both football and baseball, there have been times I have specifically rostered a player or players simply to keep my opponent from having him, especially if I see that he has a need in the coming matchup. I've never considered that it might be looked at as unethical. In order to do it, I have to give up a roster spot, one that could be used to help my team in another way, just as a major league club would need to do the same, as well as the salary. That is the price I pay, and since there is a cost for me, I see it as fair- if I am willing to assume the cost, I can have the benefit.

That being said, this has definitely caused me to think more on the topic than I ever have before, which is a good thing.

I do it all the time in Football when a opposing manager Defense has a bye. You can literally eliminate a a competitor's defense being a factor in scoring.

B-Chad wrote:Pedroia's LD rate of 20% is reason to believe he'll maintain a higher BA then Cano. It should also be noted he hits more FB's then Cano, which means that even if he posts a lower HR/FB then Cano, he should come in reasonably close to Cano in HR's

DaSh 1s wrote:And no I am not using the Wire as my bench, the competitor is using the Wire as his bench because he is collecting stats from Wire players. You got it all mixed up.

Well big league and fantasy waivers, are no where near similar in procedures, managers still use basic principle of blocking teams from acquiring players with waivers.

Um no. Because picking up free agents and having a FREE agent pool is built into the fabric of the game. But your move is artificially making the not FREE. In fact you are essentially taking players out of circulation, which skews the league. You are using the players as YOUR bench. You have that wrong. You are rendering those players unplayable, exactly as if they were on your team and you benched them. You guarantee their status. The player spot starting doesn't have the same guarantee because player C, D or E etc. could also pick up those starters independent of you and your adding dropping.

The streaming player may or may not have access to the FA pool of pitchers, but you DEFINITELY control those players. That's the crux. And that is why the mechanics of it have been changed on many sites. Note: that isn't the same as picking up a player to roster him to prevent another team from picking up the player.

And again, you face ZERO penalty for this. Whereas MLB teams do have to pay a price for it -- whether it's the contract, roster spot, trade etc. That is why your comparison is inapt. It costs you, the churner, nothing.

great gretzky wrote:Not really, because we are talking about Free Agents, which don't require a waiver claim. It's a pretty moot point on Yahoo, because if you pick up and drop the same day, it doesn't trigger the waiver process anymore. So to churn, you have to actually roster the person for a day.

Okay, that makes sense.

At the end of the day, I have to say that I've done it... perhaps not multiple times in a row, but in both football and baseball, there have been times I have specifically rostered a player or players simply to keep my opponent from having him, especially if I see that he has a need in the coming matchup. I've never considered that it might be looked at as unethical. In order to do it, I have to give up a roster spot, one that could be used to help my team in another way, just as a major league club would need to do the same, as well as the salary. That is the price I pay, and since there is a cost for me, I see it as fair- if I am willing to assume the cost, I can have the benefit.

That being said, this has definitely caused me to think more on the topic than I ever have before, which is a good thing.

What you did is different from what I am arguing. You still kept the person and gave up something of value of your own. But people do sometimes leave an open roster spot, then pick up and drop all the relevant spot starters (and football defenses) so that by the time the waivers clear, the fantasy week or the pitcher's start has passed. It might seem the same, but fundamentally different.

great gretzky wrote:You could churn 40 or 50 players in fantasy, but real-life teams are bound by payroll and roster spots.

Well that is wrong.

I was talking on a much much smaller basis. I remember last year Blanton had a start against the Marlins during the championship week. I picked him up and activated the waiver process on him because my competitor was sport starting pitchers.

Blanton ended up going 7IP 0ER 9K that game for the W. I couldn't have been more proud of myself.

And I can compare the two because they both have the word Waiver in them. EDIT: forgot the to that statement

your opponent should not be spot starting pitchers. This is a clear unwritten rule of fantasy baseball. it's blatent cheating. the entire waiver wire is not part of your roster. streaming pitchers to get extra starts is just dirty. play with the roster you have. if you use the waiver wire, do so for the reason that you think a player on the wire is better than one of your own. not because he is starting tonight. It does not take skill to predict which pitchers are starting tonight. this cheapens the game.

That's more than a little strong, considering most fantasy sites list information like this for spot starts. And by definition, the pitcher he picks up will be better than the person on his roster, otherwise he wouldn't use his innings like that.

Edit. Spot start is NOT the same as streaming. Streaming is the antithesis of churning. And just as wrong.

Last edited by great gretzky on Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DaSh 1s wrote:And no I am not using the Wire as my bench, the competitor is using the Wire as his bench because he is collecting stats from Wire players. You got it all mixed up.

Well big league and fantasy waivers, are no where near similar in procedures, managers still use basic principle of blocking teams from acquiring players with waivers.

Um no. Because picking up free agents and having a FREE agent pool is built into the fabric of the game. But your move is artificially making the not FREE. In fact you are essentially taking players out of circulation, which skews the league. You are using the players as YOUR bench. You have that wrong. You are rendering those players unplayable, exactly as if they were on your team and you benched them. You guarantee their status. The player spot starting doesn't have the same guarantee because player C, D or E etc. could also pick up those starters independent of you and your adding dropping.

The streaming player may or may not have access to the FA pool of pitchers, but you DEFINITELY control those players. That's the crux. And that is why the mechanics of it have been changed on many sites. Note: that isn't the same as picking up a player to roster him to prevent another team from picking up the player.

And again, you face ZERO penalty for this. Whereas MLB teams do have to pay a price for it -- whether it's the contract, roster spot, trade etc. That is why your comparison is inapt. It costs you, the churner, nothing.

Dude, what the balls are you talking about. I am saying the same exact thing as Kaiser

At the end of the day, I have to say that I've done it... perhaps not multiple times in a row, but in both football and baseball, there have been times I have specifically rostered a player or players simply to keep my opponent from having him, especially if I see that he has a need in the coming matchup. I've never considered that it might be looked at as unethical. In order to do it, I have to give up a roster spot, one that could be used to help my team in another way, just as a major league club would need to do the same, as well as the salary. That is the price I pay, and since there is a cost for me, I see it as fair- if I am willing to assume the cost, I can have the benefit.

It's the same thing! I cut one of my players on my team, and forfeit a roster spot on my team for a day roster Joe Blanton, to prevent another team just adding Joe Blanton two days later as a spot starter.

B-Chad wrote:Pedroia's LD rate of 20% is reason to believe he'll maintain a higher BA then Cano. It should also be noted he hits more FB's then Cano, which means that even if he posts a lower HR/FB then Cano, he should come in reasonably close to Cano in HR's

lastingsgriller wrote:your opponent should not be spot starting pitchers. This is a clear unwritten rule of fantasy baseball. it's blatent cheating. the entire waiver wire is not part of your roster. streaming pitchers to get extra starts is just dirty. play with the roster you have. if you use the waiver wire, do so for the reason that you think a player on the wire is better than one of your own. not because he is starting tonight. It does not take skill to predict which pitchers are starting tonight. this cheapens the game.

Exactly. And to compensate, I active waiver process on SP two days in advanced by forfeiting some of my roster. I cut a bench hitter, to be able to put Joe Blanton on waivers, so he would have no relevance on either of our teams. I am not sure why Gretzky is missing this.

B-Chad wrote:Pedroia's LD rate of 20% is reason to believe he'll maintain a higher BA then Cano. It should also be noted he hits more FB's then Cano, which means that even if he posts a lower HR/FB then Cano, he should come in reasonably close to Cano in HR's